| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Comparison of several congestion control algorithms |
| From: | Baruch Even <baruch@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 03 Jun 2005 14:42:52 +0100 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, doug.leith@xxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050602.165341.63126720.davem@davemloft.net> |
| References: | <4298E045.9050009@ev-en.org> <20050602.163512.10298458.davem@davemloft.net> <429F9B2F.8030507@ev-en.org> <20050602.165341.63126720.davem@davemloft.net> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050331) |
David S. Miller wrote: > From: Baruch Even <baruch@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:50:07 +0100 > > >>This is in part because of the start of the work that was based on 2.4 >>kernels and even as far as the 2.6.6 kernel which had disabled TSO once >>it saw SACKs. This made TSO unusable for our needs. >> >>AFAIK, the tests reported in that document used kernel 2.6.6. > > > Sure SACKs turn off TSO currently, but you'll have them enabled > at the beginning until the first loss and this affects how fast > the cwnd will grow. > > If you have e1000 cards, for example, you're getting TSO enabled > by default. > > You really need to look into this, as it has a real and very > non-trivial effect on all of the results you obtained. I checked that now and ethtool -k shows TSO to be disabled after boot. Since all the test scripts are not playing with ethtool I can be sure that TSO was off during all of our tests. Baruch |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] ieee80211: Update generic definitions to latest specs., Jiri Benc |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [0/9] ieee80211: Improvements to the layer, Jiri Benc |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Comparison of several congestion control algorithms, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] shaper.c: fix locking, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |